Skip to main content

Full text of "Fishing Bridge: Public Response Newsletter"

See other formats


J84 

I 29.2 

F 53/5 




PUBLIC RESPONSE NEWSLETTER 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK APRIL1986 



INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this second newsletter is to provide an update on the status of the Fishing Bridge 
environmental impact statement (EIS). In the first newsletter, released in early May 1985, the scoping process 
was explained (obtaining public assistance in determining what should be addressed in the plan) and some 
background information, issues, conceptual alternatives, and a preliminary list of environmental impacts were 
presented that could result from implementation of these alternatives. We also asked for a response to the 
planning items. Based on comments received, additional site analysis, and gathering of more information, the 
planning team has been able to better define the alternatives for the Fishing Bridge EIS. This newsletter 
summarizes additional background information and presents revised alternatives along with the site-selection 
criteria. Your assistance would be most appreciated by commenting on the alternatives and making further 
suggestions on the attached response form. 



BACKGROUND 

The intent of the EIS is to present and analyze several alternative strategies for implementing the Fishing 
Bridge portion of the 1974 Master Plan. The Master Plan recognizes the superb ecological environment that 
exists around the Fishing Bridge development and proposes restoration of this area and/or reduction of human 
impact on the surrounding habitat and wildlife. RFf^CIV/Cr^ 



NOV 1 2010 

Documents 
UGA LIBRARIES 



Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was held from 1979-1981 regarding the relationship of 
the Endangered Species Act to the Grant Village development. The "no jeopardy" biological opinion given by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service on the Grant Village Development Concept Plan (DCP) considered the Park 
Service's long-range proposal to remove facilities from Fishing Bridge as stated in the 1974 Master Plan, 
Because the EIS reconsiders the Master Plan proposal and because of the strong tie between Fishing Bridge and 
Grant Village, the National Park Service has reinitiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service will be involved in the process until completion of the plan and will give a 
biological opinion based cm tfje draft environmental impact statement. 

The park mailed^ 1,200 copies of a public response newsletter to individuals, special interest groups, and 
government agencies at the beginning of the planning process for the project. Approximately 300 response 
forms were returned to the park. Sixty-five percent of the respondents expressed support for removing or 
relocating all Fishing Bridge facilities, whereas 22 percent favored retaining all accommodations on the site. 
Three percent favored removing certain structures or implementing additional management actions to reduce 
human/bear conflicts. Ten percent of the people addressed other park topics or had no comment. 

In June 1985, the National Park Service contracted the University of Wyoming, Institute for Policy Research 
to conduct a socioeconomic study. The university was to analyze the effects of an in-park relocation of 
Fishing Bridge facilities on the gateway communities and on the tax revenues of Park and Teton counties. 
Approximately 400 visitor surveys were conducted at Fishing Bridge campground and several other park 
campgrounds in August and September of 1985 to determine visitor characteristics, preferences, travel 
patterns, and spending modes. This information was tabulated, analyzed, and incorporated into a report 
presented to the Park Service in March. Pertinent data from the report will be used in preparation of the 
the Fishing Bridge EIS. 

Over the past several months, biologists and computer analysts from the National Park Service, Forest Service, 
and Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team have developed a computerized cumulative effects analysis to assess 
the effects of management decisions on the welfare of grizzly bears. Geographic (mapped) information is used 
in the cumulative effects analysis so that the results are site-specific. The major maps used are vegetation, 
human activities, and locations of protein rich areas (i.e., fish spawning streams, concentrations of wintering 
elk and other large animals, and concentrations of carrion). Use of this process will allow evaluation of the 
current habitat value of Fishing Bridge as well as the habitat value of park areas that are being considered in 
the EIS for relocation of Fishing Bridge facilities. This cumulative effects model will assist the Park Service in 
performing a thorough analysis of all alternatives. 



SITE-SELECTION CRITERIA 

Based on issues presented in the first public response newsletter, the following site-selection criteria were 
developed to analyze potential relocation sites: 

■ effects on grizzly bear habitats and travel patterns 

■ site conditions (i.e., slope, soils, drainage, and vegetation) 

■ visitor amenities, such as access to Yellowstone Lake, other park features, and existing developed areas 
for visitor services 

■ cost to provide utility systems 

■ economic effects on the park's gateway communities because of possible alteration of traffic patterns to 
and from the park 

■ presence of archeological sites 



ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives being considered are as follows (see attached Campsite Relocation Alternatives map): 



I 1 No-Action Alternative - All facilities at Fishing Bridge would be retained. These facilities include a 
308-site campground, 358-site RV park, general store, photo shop, gas station, auto repair shop, 
employee housing, picnic area, visitor center, and amphitheater. Management actions to reduce human/ 
bear conflicts would continue. 



I — I Alternative A — The RV park and campground would be relocated to the Gull Point/ Weasel Creek area, 
and other facilities, except the visitor center, would be removed. A new general store, gas station, auto 
repair shop, and employee housing would be constructed in the Lake/Bridge Bay area. 



I I Alternative B — The RV park would be relocated to the Grant Village area, and the campsites would be 

dispersed to Elephant Back, Bridge Bay campground, and Natural Bridge sites in the Lake/Bridge Bay 
area. The general store, gas station, auto repair shop, employee housing, and visitor center would remain 
at Fishing Bridge. 



I I Alternative C — The RV park would be relocated to the Weasel Creek area, and the campsites would be 

distributed throughout the park, including the Mesa Road area south of Madison, and the Norris, Grant 
Village, Bridge Bay, and Canyon campgrounds. A new general store, gas station, auto repair shop, and 
employee housing would be constructed in the Lake/Bridge Bay area. The visitor center would remain 
as an interpretive facility at Fishing Bridge. 



I I Alternative D — Most facilities at Fishing Bridge would be retained, and a fence would be constructed 

around the RV park and campground to reduce bear/human conflicts. The campground would be 
redesigned to improve the aesthetics and to provide adequate parking and campsite spaces. The 
campground redesign would provide approximately 1 50 campsites. The remaining 1 58 campsites would 
be dispersed throughout the park (at existing campgrounds). The general store, photo shop, gas station, 
auto repair shop, employee housing, picnic area, and visitor center would also remain at Fishing Bridge 
and be upgraded as funding is made available. Increased management actions would be implemented to 
reduce human/bear conflicts. 



fVN. 



to Livtnguton 56 mil»t 




to Jackson 57 milts 



legend 



park boundary 
road 

existing campground- 
potential expansion 

potential new campgrounds 



2 4 6 8 10 MILES 
2 4 6 8 10 KILOMETERS 



CAMPSITE RELOCATION ALTERNATIVES 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 

United States Department of the Interior - National Park Service 



101 I 80,078 -A 
Feb 86 I RMRO 



RESPONSE FORM 

Your comments are important to us. Please indicate what modifications to the alternatives you wish to make. 
We also invite any new options that you think should be considered in the environmental impact statement. 
All comments are due to the superintendent of Yellowstone National Park by May 2, 1986. Response to 
this newsletter will let us know that you wish to remain on the mailing list for future planning and public 
input materials. This sheet has the superintendent's address and postage-paid franking on the back; after 
making your comments, please fold the sheet and mail. (If you need more space, please attach additional 
sheets.) 



Recommended modifications to the alternatives and why: 



Recommended additional alternatives and why: 



Other comments: 



FOLD ON DOTTED LINE AND TAPE OR STAPLE SHUT 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
Penalty for Private Use, $300 



BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 

FIRST CLASS Permit No. 12651 WASHINGTON. D.C. 



POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY INT 417 



NO POSTAGE 

NECESSARY 

IF MAILED 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES 



SUPERINTENDENT 

Yellowstone National Park 

P.O. Box 168 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190 



FUTURE PLANNING SCHEDULE 



Completion of University of Wyoming 
Socioeconomic Survey Report 



March 1986 



Completion of Cumulative Effects Analysis 



June 1986 



Prepare and distribute draft EIS to the public 



October 1986 



Public comments on the draft EIS received 
and analyzed 



January 1987 



Prepare and distribute final EIS to the public 



May 1987 



Public review and preparation of the 
Record of Decision 



June 1987 



As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve 
our land and water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, and parks and recreation areas, and to ensure the wise use of all 
these resources. The department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 
who live in island territories under U. S. administration. 

Publication services were provided by the editorial and graphics staffs of the Denver Service Center, March 1986. 



GPO 849 - 708 



Fi B h 1 "nn E u S ,"!, 0F GE0RGI « LIBRARIES 

Fishing b ^|y public respQns 

niiiiiiiiiiihiii * 

3 ElOa 0HT7E 3613 







CO 








O 














m 


T) 












■a 
> 


ro 




o 




< 

n 




3J 


J 

< 


o 

Tl 


a 
<o 

2 




2 


H 
2 C 


Tl 


cu 




§ 


a 
to 




m Z 


o 

"D 


o 
> 

I - 


5' 

Bl 


O 

CO 



5L 

T) 


3S 

O D 


< 

0) 


en 


-o 





2 


a 


■n M 


01 


CO 


*• 






H H 


c 


en 





(/] 


I > 


It 

</) 
u 
o 


2 

m 

CO 
CO 


< 

o 
3 

3' 

ID 


UJ 


"0 

B 


2 

0' 
CD 


m H 
_ m 

H 


Q 










m 






00 








30 






NJ 








O 






CO 










3J 



c 
in 

o 

m 
-0 
> 

X 
H 
2 



2 2 

* O